I have come up with an idea mainly from Rjeatons hard work. Im looking to track 26 unique spins using rxtreme and then it to either
1:) Stop, so I can chose my bet
or
2:) Bet on those 26 numbers for a total of 11 spins using a progression.
My logic behind this is that of Rjs that its very very very unlikely that a set of 37 spins will turn out 37 different numbers. Hope someone can help me with this.
Thanks for saying I work hard their Sean :) (I'm actually a slacker, haha)
Glad to see my posts have inspired somebody though.
I've attached an RXtreme file to this post in the form of a .txt file. Just copy and paste it into the "system editor" in RXtreme.
It does what you've said above in the second option. (in other words it doesn't stop and let you choose your bet, it bets for you on the 26 unique hit numbers)
The only difference is it adds bets if you don't win. So, let's say 26 different numbers do come out in 26 spins. Then spin 27 is another new number. It adds a bet to that new number as well...so on and so forth for 11 spins...win or lose.
Don't hold your breath though, as I've had it running for 120,000 spins and still no betting opportunity (I haven't had it running in RXtreme, I've had it running in the bot Tiago made for me. The reason for that is Tiagos bot spins a lot faster than RXtreme does...I've gone through 120k spins in about 12 minutes using)
I'm now at 220,000 spins...still hasn't placed a bet...
Interesting....I just hit 221,467 spins, and it placed a bet and won on the first spin...
Thanks for the help RJ, how about if we mix it up down to 25,24,23 etc until it looks ok (if it does at all!) Do I just change the code to 25 instead of 26 yea?
Sort of that easy...kind of...haha.
The code I posted for you, is the same coding I'm working on making available to everybody with a bunch of inputs. It is still very sloppily written, and as you can see, still missing almost all of the inputs I want to add.
You have to change all of the numbers in the coding that are currently set to 26 to 25.
Then you have to change (its at the bottom of the code) "spin counter correction" to 24
Then you have to change "bet counter" > 10 to this - "bet counter" > 11 (if you have everything else set to 25 that is)
I'm still working on making this so all you do is enter the user inputs on the main screen...almost there actually...
Can you see if its any good with 20,21,22,23 spins RJ? Rxtreme is sooo slow compared to your little wiz!
Thanks for the info again
Yup, working on it right now actually.
Instead of working my way backwards from 26 to 20, I'm going to start from 20 and work my way up to 26.
I have two different settings to try with each number however. Those being:
20 unique numbers happens - Option 1: Bet on those 20 numbers. If I lose (obviously that means now 21 unique numbers in a row have come out) add a bet to the new unique number and still bet on the other 20 (in other words, add bets).
20 unique numbers happens - Option 2: Bet on those 20 numbers and those 20 numbers only for 17 spins (using a progression).
I already tried Option 1. It worked for about 20k spins, then I ended up with a $35,000 drawdown.
Working on Option 2 now.
I'll continue to let you know how it goes.
Lol 35k, yikes. Thanks for this Rjeaton, my only concern is the 17 step progression if it ever came.
Oh, I forgot, there is also a ton of smaller options (I have a long list here on my computer of ways I test systems individually)
Just a small example of the even smaller nuances I test on each variable (20 uniques, 21 uniques, 22 uniques, etc.) are as follows:
If I find that option 1 and option 2 from above are not at least consistent winners (not looking for the HG here, just another system that can win very consistently...already eliminated option 1 from above) I move on to the following:
If I find that in option 1, it very often won within the first 3 bets (over 95% of the time) and then if it went past the first 3 bets it almost always plummets to failure, I add in a new option...Option 1A (its option 1A because it follows all of option 1's rules but with a new twist. If this too fails, I add the same idea to option 2, making option 2A for a total of 4 options for 20 unique spins. I'll probably have a total of 8 to 10 options for 20 unique spins before I move on entirely)
So, option 1A would look like this if the "95% of the time" thing I mentioned above is true:
Wait until I have 20 unique numbers. Bet on those 20 unique numbers adding bets if lost (as those are the original rules of option 1). BUT the difference that makes it option 1A is this:
If I lose 3 bets in a row, it quits betting and starts tracking an entirely new set of numbers. The next time it finds that it has 20 unique numbers in a row, it starts betting again (for 3 bets only) BUT it is trying to recoup the losses of the previous 3 spin set. If it loses again, it repeats...etc.
There are number of more options within options here (the list is not infinite however...it may be theoretically, but it's not in terms of functional testing...in my opinion anyway).
Quote from: rjeaton1 on June 22, 2009, 07:30:30 PM
Oh, I forgot, there is also a ton of smaller options (I have a long list here on my computer of ways I test systems individually)
Just a small example of the even smaller nuances I test on each variable (20 uniques, 21 uniques, 22 uniques, etc.) are as follows:
If I find that option 1 and option 2 from above are not at least consistent winners (not looking for the HG here, just another system that can win very consistently...already eliminated option 1 from above) I move on to the following:
If I find that in option 1, it very often won within the first 3 bets (over 95% of the time) and then if it went past the first 3 bets it almost always plummets to failure, I add in a new option...Option 1A (its option 1A because it follows all of option 1's rules but with a new twist. If this too fails, I add the same idea to option 2, making option 2A for a total of 4 options for 20 unique spins. I'll probably have a total of 8 to 10 options for 20 unique spins before I move on entirely)
So, option 1A would look like this if the "95% of the time" thing I mentioned above is true:
Wait until I have 20 unique numbers. Bet on those 20 unique numbers adding bets if lost (as those are the original rules of option 1). BUT the difference that makes it option 1A is this:
If I lose 3 bets in a row, it quits betting and starts tracking an entirely new set of numbers. The next time it finds that it has 20 unique numbers in a row, it starts betting again (for 3 bets only) BUT it is trying to recoup the losses of the previous 3 spin set. If it loses again, it repeats...etc.
There are number of more options within options here (the list is not infinite however...it may be theoretically, but it's not in terms of functional testing...in my opinion anyway).
This is why I always look out for your posts rj, always working and amending little things that make a huge difference. Please update us with the latest results from each little section, this idea (which is essentially yours) has something to it im sure.
Thanks Sean ;D
Alright, here is an example of what I'm talking about (keep in mind, this thread will probably me moved to the "Testing Section" as we're more expermenting at this point and time)
I have testing option 1 with this twist. You bet for one spin and one spin only (after finding the 20 uniques of course). Now, in the BR balance trend below you'll notice something that will inevitably make me test one more thing with option 1A making it option 1.1A and that is this:
It doesn't OFTEN lose more than 2 times in a row. When it does, the drawdown obviously gets exponentially larger. So, I'll continue to let this run for 3 to 4 hundred K spins and see if that holds true. If it does, then I'll change one more thing. Bet one time after getting 20 uniques on a win or lose track and wait for new bet trigger. If you lose more than 2 bets using the above criteria, no longer try to recoup any previous losses.
Any news on the updated system RJ?
Sorry I haven't been around for a day or two, I've had a lot going on.
I've got some more results for this, but I haven't gotten too far in my testing. I pretty much had to entirely discard any options as far as tracking 20 spins and adding more bets. Regardless of how many safety measures I incorporated, it always ended (although sometimes it took MUCH longer) in the same result.
So far, I still haven't made it past the "track 20 spins" phase, as I mentioned earlier, there are normally a lot of options within each option to test.
However, on the upside, here is my latest test (which is just option 2 as mentioned earlier in this thread, but with no changes)
467,621 spins
Starting BR: $500.00 (I'm using .01 as bet unit value, so that is actually a 50,000 unit starting BR)
Ending BR: $561.44 (again, as far as units that's 56,144)
Largest drawdown: $83.20 (in units - 8,320)
I'm still letting it run...I want to see just how big a drawdown can get (realistically speaking).
Cheers RJ. You think this has any merit whatsover? Also how is your system going on your new bot!?
Quote from: sean43 on June 24, 2009, 06:50:55 PM
Cheers RJ. You think this has any merit whatsover?
That's tough to say Sean. I think whether or not a system has any merit is up to the person playing it and their opinion. (unless it is just an outright failure of course).
I've let this run even longer, and I'm now at 1,002,943 spins. Here are the results:
Spins: 1,002,943
Starting BR: $500 (again, I'm using .01 as units so that's 50,000 units)
Ending BR: $627.84 (62,784 units)
Laregest Drawdown: $192 (19,200 units)
I've also included the BR Balance Trend
Oh, and as far as my bot goes, it is going well (should be starting with real money within the next two days...I'll DEFINITELY be posting my results...especially if though go absolutely horribly...as I'll need a place to vent, haha).
The thing with my bot is, it doesn't play only one system. It plays just about any inside numbers system I can dream up. I actually just had added to it this feature (Tiago2 is the man...he added this in like...20 minutes or so...crazy..)
Before, my bot would only play the system however I configured it. So, if I configured it to track 20 spins of the wheel and bet only on numbers hit one time only if no number had come out twice and not add bets after the betting started, it would do that.
The thing is, (as you can see above) it only made $127.00 in over 1 million spins. BUT...it DID make money. So, I got to thinking...what if I had 10 systems all that took FOREVER to place a bet, but each did turn a profit without an unacceptable BR Drawdown...I think anything less than a $400 drawdown is acceptable.
I asked Tiago if he would add in this feature: The ability for me to configure the system 4 different ways and have the bot play each way independtly of the other....well, he had no problem doing that, but took it one step further. He added the ability to configure my system an INFINITE amount of ways (although I select how many ways I want to configure the system of course) and it will play each one independently of the other.
So, let's say I get 13 systems all that make a profit of $100 over 1 million spins without an unacceptable drawdown. I can then configure the bot to play all 13 of those ways (tracking and betting are all done independently of the other) at the same time.
Hopefully you see where I'm going with this. I'll let you know how this turns out.